Gujarat High Court
Daulatbhai Pranubhai Desai vs State Of Gujarat Thr' Secretary & 4 on 30 January, 2015
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri, A.G.Uraizee
C/SCA/14517/2010 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14517 of 2010
================================================================
DAULATBHAI PRANUBHAI DESAI, HIMSELF & AS KARTA OF
HUF....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THR' SECRETARY & 4....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PR ABICHANDANI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR R R PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 5
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR MB GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 30/01/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) Heard learned advocate Mr. P.R.Abhichandani for the petitioner. He has relied upon two orders of this Court dated 6/3/2007 & 5/10/2007, which are as under:
ORDER DATED 6/3/2007:
By filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to issue an appropriate writ to quash the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) which was published in the Official Gazette on Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/14517/2010 ORDER October 10, 2005, declaring that certain survey numbers belonging to the petitioner situated at Village Vapi were likely to be needed for the public purpose of establishment of Vapi Transportnagar by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation.
2. On notice being served, Ms. Krina P. Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears for respondent Nos.1 and 3, whereas Mr. Nilay P. Anjaria, learned Counsel appears for respondent No.2. During the course of the hearing of the petition, Ms. Krina P. Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3, on instructions of Mr. R. S. Kishori, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Ahmedabad, who is personally present in the Court, states at the Bar that by another Notification dated February 9, 2007 issued by the Revenue Department of the Government of Gujarat, the Government has cancelled the Notification dated October 10, 2005, which was published in the Official Gazette under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. In support of the statement made at the Bar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced a copy of the Gujarat Government Gazette dated February 9, 2007 wherein the said notification has been published for perusal of the Court. The same is ordered to be taken on record of the petition.
3. In view of the contents of the Notification dated February 9, 2007, this Court is of the opinion that the instant petition, challenging the publication of the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Official Gazette on October 10, 2007, has become infructuous and therefore, deserves to be disposed of accordingly.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is dismissed. Notice is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. The petition stands disposed of as having become infructuous.
Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/14517/2010 ORDERORDER DATED 5/10/2007:
1. The petitioner is the association of the persons who are dealing in the business of transportation and all the members of association are the citizen of India and they have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction against the respondent-Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation to make the provisions for Transport Nagar in GIDC, Vapi and allot the requisite place to each members of the petitioner association who has applied to the letter dated 22.9.2003 and publication in Gujarat Samachar dated 30.11.2003.
2. It is the case of the petitioner association that respondent No.1 is duty bound under the provisions of statute to provide facilities of separate area for transport. It is also submitted that since there was an offer by the GIDC to submit a demand draft of Rs.1,000/- by each member along with an application for seeking allotment and the said amount is paid to GIDC by not less than 361 members. After receipt of the aforesaid publication, till today no decision is taken by the GIDC. Learned counsel further submits that it is the statutory function of the GIDC that along with the internal roads, electricity, sewerage and other common amenities, the respondent is to provide for separate enclave for vehicles of transporters. It is also submitted that the development of the industries depend upon the facility of transportation. Since movement of goods manufactured is to be exported outside, need basic infrastructure like good roads and common parking facilities. Since above facilities are not provided, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.
3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the GIDC-respondent herein has filed affidavit-
in-reply and it is stated that as early as in 1999 a proposal for requisition of land was submitted by the Vapi Office to the General Manager (Land), GIDC, Gandhinagar and on the Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/14517/2010 ORDER said proposal notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued on 10.10.2005, which ultimately came to be cancelled on 9.2.2007 and, thereafter also new proposal was submitted by the GIDC, Vapi to the Head Office on 15.3.2007. It is further submitted that all efforts are made to acquire the land for transporters and necessary action is taken up along with the facility of transportation, the Corporation is also planning for development of other infrastructure and taking all possible measures to facilitate allottees of industrial plots.
4. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, perusal of the record and going through the affidavit-in-reply, I am of the opinion that respondent-GIDC has taken adequate measures to acquire land since 1999 and proposal was submitted to the authority. However, after issuance of notification under Section 4, the same came to be cancelled on 9.2.2007 and new proposal is also submitted on 15.3.2007. It is also submitted by the counsel on the basis of information available to him that the process to acquire the land is to be expedited and the members of the association are to be informed about the action taken by GIDC. It is no doubt true that development of any industry depends upon the basic infrastructure available for producing, manufacturing and marketing the product, alongwith other such activities and transport is one of the basic requirement for growth of such industries. It is to be noted that when proposal is submitted to Head Office on 15th March, 2007, it appears that no further action seems to have been taken by the GIDC. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and when necessary requisite amount is collected by way of an application by GIDC for providing Transport Nagar, respondent herein is directed to take immediate action to forward the said proposal to the State Government immediately so as to expedite the acquisition proceedings and apprise the members accordingly. In case if no action is taken within three months from today by the authority in this Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/14517/2010 ORDER regard, it will be open for the petitioner to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged."
Learned advocate Mr. Abhichandani states that though the recommendation has been sent immediately within ten days, no steps have been taken by the respondent.
Learned AGP Mr. R.R.Patel seeks time to work out on the recommendation. Hence, S.O. to 13th February, 2015.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (A.G.URAIZEE,J) *asma Page 5 of 5